NOAA has released its data on the US temperatures in March. If you got the …

As record temperatures swept through the Midwest and trees bloomed early across the Northeast, lots of talk focused on what an unusually warm start spring was having. The folks at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have now crunched the numbers, and found that it wasn't just unusually warm—March was bizarrely hot. With 15,000 record high temperatures set in the US, it was far and away the warmest March in the nation's history, and only a single month—January of 2006—was as far off from the monthly average.

Only one of the 48 contiguous states (Washington) was below normal, and a huge slice down the center of the country was bathed in bright red in NOAA's map, indicative of record high temperatures. The heatwave was partly responsible for moving the first quarter of the year into the top slot of the US record books. The high temperatures also kicked off an unusually early spring cluster of tornadoes in the Midwest.

Neither NASA nor NOAA have managed to do the global monthly averages yet, so it's not clear if our experience was shared by much of the rest of the planet (the US occupies a relatively small fraction of its surface). So far this year, the global means have been pretty mundane. They're above last century's average, but not by a lot, and every month has been above that average since early 1994.

NOAA indicates that it was a specific weather pattern that pushed heat into the central US. One of the key drivers of global temperature, the tropical Pacific's surface temperatures, remain in a cooler, La Niña state, so it's unlikely the rest of the world shared in our warmth.

Remember, weather is NOT the same as climate. One abnormal month does not a climate make.

Yes, the climate is changing. Yes, it seems people are responsible for most of that change. It doesn't mean we can get lazy and conflate the same two terms the deniers do.

Most of us are smarter than that. But if deniers are going to assert that [certain cherry-picked weather data] falsifies climate change, surely it's only fair to rebut with [certain other cherry-picked weather data]. After giving up on educating about the big picture and actual science, of course.

Yes, the climate is changing. Yes, it seems people are responsible for most of that change. It doesn't mean we can get lazy and conflate the same two terms the deniers do.

Agreed. I'm a 100% believer in AGW but we need to be careful not to sensationalize. Even the article stated that the rest of the world probably did NOT share our heat spell, and that it was likely caused by a specific weather phenomenon rather than global warming in general.

Even the article stated that the rest of the world probably did NOT share our heat spell, and that it was likely caused by a specific weather phenomenon rather than global warming in general.

It appears the Arctic Oscillation (the 'specific wx phenomenon') may have been perturbed by melting of the Arctic sea ice/warming of the Arctic caused by AGW.

Second, several scientists recently wrote that the heat spell could have been caused by the 'loading of the climate dice' by AGW. That is: the 'fat tail' distribution of extreme events is made fatter by greenhouse gas emissions, skewing the normal distribution or 'loading the dice'.

With that out of the way, here in Serbia we had the coldest weather here this January. It was -25°C, which is a record low for the past several decades. And in March we already had 27°C. That is a change of 50+ degrees in just 2 months which is rather unusual for the region, not to mention that daily variations are also becoming sharper and sharper -- with like 15 to 20 degrees difference in one day. Now someone please tell me how that is all just coincidence and that the climate is not changing so I can sleep better.

It kind of sucks that those who understand climate always know to moderate their results to point to the actual changes, while those who do not understand climate will take a warm or cold month to 'prove' their argument(either direction). Guess thats the difference between actual science and propoganda, however.

Most of us are smarter than that. But if deniers are going to assert that [certain cherry-picked weather data] falsifies climate change, surely it's only fair to rebut with [certain other cherry-picked weather data]. After giving up on educating about the big picture and actual science, of course.

Please don't. I know a bit of tit-for-tat sounds like a good idea now and then but at the end it just makes us no better than them. Plus it'll give them the feeling that their "arguments" are legitimate ("hey look, the other side does it too so we must be doing it right!") and reinforce their ignorance and bad logic even further.

My philosophy: teach them properly. And if they can't learn, teach their kids properly.

It appears the Arctic Oscillation (the 'specific wx phenomenon') may have been perturbed by melting of the Arctic sea ice/warming of the Arctic caused by AGW.

Second, several scientists recently wrote that the heat spell could have been caused by the 'loading of the climate dice' by AGW. That is: the 'fat tail' distribution of extreme events is made fatter by greenhouse gas emissions, skewing the normal distribution or 'loading the dice'.

Yes, I don't doubt AGW has had effects on local weather patterns and that in turn could have an effect on US weather this year. I'm just saying, the evidence presented in the article (particularly the map because that's what everyone will see) in and of itself shouldn't be construed as definitive proof for global warming.

Most of us are smarter than that. But if deniers are going to assert that [certain cherry-picked weather data] falsifies climate change, surely it's only fair to rebut with [certain other cherry-picked weather data]. After giving up on educating about the big picture and actual science, of course.

No, it's lowering yourself to their level and accomplishes nothing.

Normal in California? Not in Southern Cal. It was abnormally cold. The rest of you lot stole our warm! GIVE IT BACK!

Whilst waiting for NASA and NOAA:Norway had its warmest March ever (since records began in 1900) with the average temperature being 4.3°C above normal. The UK had its driest month for 60 years with the average daytime temperature being 1.1°C above normal.

Remember, weather is NOT the same as climate. One abnormal month does not a climate make.

Yes, the climate is changing. Yes, it seems people are responsible for most of that change. It doesn't mean we can get lazy and conflate the same two terms the deniers do.

Most of us are smarter than that. But if deniers are going to assert that [certain cherry-picked weather data] falsifies climate change, surely it's only fair to rebut with [certain other cherry-picked weather data]. After giving up on educating about the big picture and actual science, of course.

The people who are denying climate change are doing so out of ideological reasons. They don't understand the science of it nor do they want to. They take one or two points a politician or pundit points out to make it seem like there is a lot of controversy over the subject and then repeat them whenever the subject comes up. These people won't change their minds until it is already too late to do anything about it.

Remember, weather is NOT the same as climate. One abnormal month does not a climate make.

Yes, the climate is changing. Yes, it seems people are responsible for most of that change. It doesn't mean we can get lazy and conflate the same two terms the deniers do.

Most of us are smarter than that. But if deniers are going to assert that [certain cherry-picked weather data] falsifies climate change, surely it's only fair to rebut with [certain other cherry-picked weather data]. After giving up on educating about the big picture and actual science, of course.

A technological breakthrough is the only answer. It's either that or hope that the earth balances itself out.

Technological and/or engineering and/or policy. There are a lot of avenues to pursue both curbing the CO2 rise, both at source and adding sink, and adjusting for the portions of climate change that are going to happen anyway. They don’t all require Mad Syance Skillz.

I'm just saying, the evidence presented in the article (particularly the map because that's what everyone will see) in and of itself shouldn't be construed as definitive proof for global warming.

Right. The phrasing goes something like 'this sort of thing is just what we expect in a warming world. Science doesn't offer 'definitive proof', it provides likelihoods for events.

We already have good evidence of warming, and good evidence that it is man-caused. And now we are getting more and more extreme events seemingly annually, which is what projections and predictions tell us should happen.

Soon, without action to cut GHG emissions, we will be outside the weather/climate bounds within which our societies evolved.

My thoughts are that the pattern shows a big La Nina effect. THe high pressure that is normally on the Rockies caused by the westerly winds was more subdued with the lower temperatures in the pacific. The amount of differential of low pressure on the far side of the Rockies didn't pull down the cold air out of siberia. Europe ended up with a cooler as there wasn't the lower pressures in Alberta area sucking the cooler air that way, also making the middle area less likely to get the cooler air with a higher amount of drift. Washington being the standout because the cooler pacific effect. Alberta had a much warmer than average winter.

A technological breakthrough is the only answer. It's either that or hope that the earth balances itself out.

I guess another way of looking at it is, we can only start to apply meaningful pressure on China and India to cut their emissions after we've done our part. Otherwise it'd make us look like hypocrites, wouldn't it? Politically speaking, I don't think it's impossible to convince the whole world to tidy up if we act as a leader.

This isn't a weather site. Why is Ars cluttering the site weather news?

It's science news. Ars typically focuses on tech news, but science in general gets reported here all the time.

That's pretty weak.

I think it's clear that Ars posted this for political reason, in attempt to blur the distinction between "climate" and "weather." A very ant-tech, anti-science thing to do.

On what basis do you make that claim? The NOAA (a scientific organization) published a report (news), therefore, by definition, this is news about science. Anything you see in this article says more about you than about Ars.

This isn't a weather site. Why is Ars cluttering the site weather news?

It's science news. Ars typically focuses on tech news, but science in general gets reported here all the time.

That's pretty weak.

I think it's clear that Ars posted this for political reason, in attempt to blur the distinction between "climate" and "weather." A very ant-tech, anti-science thing to do.

This news is straight from NOAA with commentary from NASA, two strong science organizations. This is science. If you don't like it maybe you should check out some websites more at your intellectual level. May I suggest you start here.

Remember, weather is NOT the same as climate. One abnormal month does not a climate make.

Yes, the climate is changing. Yes, it seems people are responsible for most of that change. It doesn't mean we can get lazy and conflate the same two terms the deniers do.

Most of us are smarter than that. But if deniers are going to assert that [certain cherry-picked weather data] falsifies climate change, surely it's only fair to rebut with [certain other cherry-picked weather data]. After giving up on educating about the big picture and actual science, of course.

A technological breakthrough is the only answer. It's either that or hope that the earth balances itself out.

Technological and/or engineering and/or policy. There are a lot of avenues to pursue both curbing the CO2 rise, both at source and adding sink, and adjusting for the portions of climate change that are going to happen anyway. They don’t all require Mad Syance Skillz.

Not only that, but implementing the solutions we have today in the west will by default drive down prices making those solutions more cost competitive in the third world. Mass rollout of nuclear and renewables will increase production and drive down prices, thus making them cheaper and easier to implement elsewhere.

There is no real losing scenario for addressing this today to the best of our abilities. We stand to gain energy security, cheaper power, cleaner air and a serious reduction in our contributions to AGW. Plus in the process we should be making it easier for others to move in that direction as well. Win-win all around really...

This isn't a weather site. Why is Ars cluttering the site weather news?

It's science news. Ars typically focuses on tech news, but science in general gets reported here all the time.

That's pretty weak.

I think it's clear that Ars posted this for political reason, in attempt to blur the distinction between "climate" and "weather." A very ant-tech, anti-science thing to do.

Odd point of view given how often Ars goes out of its way to explain the distinction between weather and climate. Even odder since this very article points that distinction out. Do you actually read before you post?